Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Formal definitions (Re: ada-c++ productivity) Message-ID: <5SRAQGA@xds13.ferranti.com> Date: 16 Apr 91 16:03:21 GMT References: <50577@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <50842@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 22 In article <50842@nigel.ee.udel.edu> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: > In article peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >That bringing up the SDI bugaboo is pretty much an irrelevant digression. > My point is that for certain jobs, even if formal techniques don't > guarantee perfection, the job may be important enough to get right > that the extra effort done on a formal validation may be worthwhile. Oh, I quite agree. End of argument here. (now if they could all be that easy). I was reacting to the implication that formal techniques could make the impossible practical. There *are* people who think that way. > I remember. I still don't see the relevance. The explosion you were > talking about was caused from a station wagon, not an incomming > missle. I don't think there are any plans (at least not publicly :-O ) > to use SDI against station wagons. Well, actually it was a minivan. I guess it would depend on if you could use active homing on the fuzzbuster. :-> -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"